Outpatient hysteroscopy is effective for uterine cavity evaluation following failed office‐based endometrial biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure to obtain an office-based endometrial biopsy for abnormal uterine bleeding is not uncommon. Although operating room-based procedures are traditionally considered the gold standard assessment tool in these circumstances, outpatient hysteroscopy is a less invasive, more cost-effective, and safer alternative. However, there is no contemporary Canadian literature on the effectiveness of an outpatient approach for this specific population. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of outpatient hysteroscopy for uterine cavity evaluation for patients who have failed an in-office endometrial biopsy attempt. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients referred to an academic outpatient hysteroscopy unit between January 2015 and January 2018, who underwent an outpatient hysteroscopy following failed endometrial biopsy. Data were collected from electronic medical records. RESULTS: Of the 407 consecutive patients who underwent an outpatient hysteroscopic procedure, 68 met inclusion criteria. Postmenopausal bleeding was the most common indication for initial biopsy, and most failures were attributed to cervical stenosis. Outpatient hysteroscopies were successfully completed in 96% of cases (n = 65/68). Failure resulted from either anxiety and discomfort (n = 2), or severe intrauterine adhesions (n = 1). Overall, 10% of patients subsequently required an operating room-based hysteroscopy, either to complete a myomectomy or polypectomy, or to allow general anesthesia. Outpatient hysteroscopy identified endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in 4.5% and 3% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Outpatient hysteroscopy following unsuccessful office endometrial biopsy attempts appears to be a feasible, safe, and cost-effective investigation strategy that may prevent the need for an operating room-based procedure in 90% of cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".